I'm here and ready to answer all you have to ask about #SFC. Might be better if we do it in this thread so it doesn't pollute the timelines (hey, a Multiverse joke!)
Any way you do it, use the hashtag #SFC so we're sure to see your questions.
Cc: @karen
@ossguy @outreachy
This is a good question, & goes to the core of common confusions about what #LGPLv2.1 & #GPLv2 require.
My essay here explains the history…
https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-the-gpl-right-to-install/
…about this matter.
What the GPLv2 requires is the software *under* GPLv2 has to be upgradable/installable, but breaking the proprietary applications is ok upon changing the underlying software is permitted; that's what TiVo did.
LPGLv2.1§6 requires that you can relink (either through replacing .so or statically) in place
Two schools of thought about the purpose of copyleft have been at odds for some time. Simply put, the question is: are copyleft licenses designed primarily to protect the rights of large companies that produce electronics and software products, or is copyleft designed primarily to protect individual users' rights to improve, modify, repair, and reinstall their software?
Software Freedom Conservancy
Bradley M. Kühn
Stefan Hajnoczi